Something I’ve done on occasion to figure out the author’s point of view is to find the place where s/he is talking about the relevant point, and look for any non-necessary words: words that don’t absolutely have to be there to convey the facts, as well as words that could have been chosen differently to give a different impression. See what would be lost by stripping the prose down to the bare minimum, and that usually gives you an idea of the author’s viewpoint.

Unfortunately I haven’t had enough time to find good public-domain examples, but here is one from a blog I’m currently reading that might give you the idea. (Copied from http://www.corante.com/loom/archives…ng_hobbits.php)

Skeptics find this possibility implausible, arguing that it’s more likely this individual was just a pygmy human with some genetic defect. As far as I can tell, this skepticism about shrinking hominid brains flows from two sources.

The other source of skepticism, which I mentioned in my last post, is a vague sense that when it comes to hominid brains, evolution cannot run in reverse. It’s certainly true that if you draw a graph of hominid brain size over time, it has climbed to spectacular heights…

In the first paragraph, take "skeptics" - that’s a loaded word. Does he consider himself a skeptic? Probably not. Saying "as far as I can tell" implies that he doesn’t really understand the skeptics’ viewpoint, so presumably he doesn’t share it. ("implausible" and "just" are two other words you might take notice of.)

Second paragraph, "vague" also implies that he doesn’t share that sense - respectable scientific hypotheses shouldn’t be vague. Then in the next sentence, the use of "certainly" in this case is implying that a "BUT" is coming up soon (it’s the next paragraph, in fact) - like saying "well, I’ll give you that, BUT that’s the only part you have right."

This is obviously not an ideal passage for this use, because Zimmer isn’t at all trying to hide his viewpoint, but it might give you an idea of the kind of thing to look for.